“I know a great little place where we can get some good, authentic Catholic cuisine.” How would you react if your date made that statement? If you’re being honest, wouldn’t you silently stare at that person with a blank look on your face, and think to yourself “Um…I think I’ll go home now”?
I have never actually heard of anyone experiencing this. But I’m starting to believe that it’s probably coming soon. More and more I hear of Catholics trying to find the “Catholic” version of everything in life.
It’s not good enough to have good rock music; it has to be Christian rock. The musician might be Catholic, but if he or she is not outwardly obvious about their Catholicism, then they are not Catholic enough.
Or it’s not good enough that a Catholic goes to Bermuda on vacation, better that they go on pilgrimage. (and I’m not knocking pilgrimages, after all, I’m going on one in October!)
It’s not good enough that a Catholic couple go out dancing, better that they attend a Theology of the Body talk. Or an engaged couple feels like they should give their business to Catholic businesses rather than seek out the best price or (more importantly), quality service.
There’s nothing wrong with doing explicitly “Catholic” types of things, or considering the Catholic person for your business over someone who is not Catholic. But there is everything wrong with over-thinking this, or purposely excluding the explicitly non-Catholic things or people of our culture.
I recently heard about a parish announcing that a new Boy Scout troop was being started because they want to make Boy Scouting more “Catholic.” Boy Scouts is an American institution, and millions of Catholic boys have been Boy Scouts and become fine young men of character. To presume to make Boy Scouts more “Catholic” is to attempt to exclude non-Catholics, which is a very non-Catholic attitude.
I’m all for being mindful of how careful people need to be in the culture of death we dwell within, but there is such a thing as going too far, distorting the facts, and frankly getting it all wrong. This hyper-sensitive concern for what is “Catholic” risks individuals living in true freedom and losing the person.
Though there are destructive things in our culture, we are not to fear it. There is much more about culture that is good and a gifts from God, meant for us to enjoy and relax as we partake in them.
Catholics seeking to meet a quality person who is a practicing Catholic have it hard enough. Setting the bar so high that a Catholic must think, speak, live, breath all things explicitly “Catholic” is a grave mistake.
To me, this is a red flag that you are dealing with someone who is likely a fundamentalist Catholic, one with little tolerance for mistakes in others. Often the intensely religious are harsh, cruel, controlling people.
It’s an interesting modern phenomenon to consider something or someone as having credibility or value because of the label of “Catholic”.
A Catholic store makes sense because it sells products that are for Catholic devotion and spiritual enrichment. A Catholic church makes sense because it is a house of good centered on Catholic worship.
But can you imagine if we started having things like a Catholic baseball team, or a Catholic supermarket? What is the message we are saying to the world? It says, “we exclude you.” Isn’t that the Protestant notion?
What is so beautiful about authentic Catholic culture historically is that Catholics are involved with the culture, and transform it by example and living their life. But they embrace the cultural things, not escape them. They don’t bully the culture with the hammer of “Catholic,” nor behave condescendingly to all cultural things, only embracing it if it becomes labeled “Catholic.” There was no need to re-label the things of culture, just live as individuals within it, and perhaps simply transform the spirit of it.
Catholic dating tends to have this labeling mentality in a lot of ways. I just did it myself just now. I called it “Catholic dating.” Dating, love and marriage are already implicitly “Catholic”. Unfortunately, we need the label of “Catholic dating” because dating in general has departed so far from a traditional moral structure, becoming quite reckless, hedonistic, and irresponsible. It’s just not what it used to be, and we need to make sure people have a way to know right away if they are on the same page.
But all dating and courtship is about love, and love is all about God, and is God. The extraction of God from modern love, dating and courtship is technically anti-Catholic. So I am in favor of some aspects of labeling in order to help people have some initial perspective.
But we go too far when we feel we have to distrust anything that we cannot outwardly define as “Catholic.”
We should not be imposing on the mystery of love an intense and rigid approach to culture in the dating process. Too many single Catholics get caught up in what might be the “Catholic” places to go or things to do, or the “Catholic” things to wear. Worse, they get caught up in determining if the person they are dating is “Catholic” enough for them, when it is a sinner that they will love and commit to in marriage.
We are becoming a culture of judgmental people with excessively high standards for the Catholics we date and choose to love. And a large part of this is because we cannot accept that we are culturally influenced people.. Our Catholicism can be the most important part of us, and lived in every aspect of life, but is not the culture.
People make up the culture from God’s creation all around us. Creation itself is implicitly “Catholic.” We don’t need to put labels to everything in order to appreciate it or partake in it. A good cup of coffee is culture. A Catholic cup of coffee is redundant. The quality, delicious coffee already is “catholic” because it’s God’s creation coupled by man’s invention and industry.
We need to relax. Just because your date does not talk about Catholicism 24/7 does not mean they aren’t a good catch. In fact, they’re a much better catch than the person who feels they have to dominate all topics of conversation with religion.
So go out on your dates and have a delicious meal of the multiplicity of ethnic food choices, walking in a beautiful park with the delightful breeze of the night air, enjoying the talents of others at a theatrical performance or at a museum, or any of the endless cultural opportunities that your area has to offer.
None of it has to have the word “Catholic” associated with it. But the enjoyment of all of it together, drawing you subtly closer in heart, is as Catholic as it gets.
I have to agree with Anthony here. It’s a bit stifling to have a friend who is always concerned with the Catholicism of everything from events, to food, to clothes. The approach I take is that the world has a lot of good in it, but you must act like a sieve, sort out the bad, and avoid anything leading you away from God. It’s a balancing act. We must be in the world, but not of it. For example, I enjoy dance club music and play it, but don’t go clubbing due to the drugs and promiscuity.
I’ve experienced this; it was disappointing! I thought we were communicating well, and he is intelligent, attractive, and confident. But apparently there was something about the way I spent my leisure time one evening that he found objectionable–and it was so trivial. I even questioned friends who are known for their orthodoxy about the matter…they are the kind of friends who will tell the truth in love, and who have offered fraternal correction in the past…they didn’t have any correction for me in this situation. Oh well, maybe this column will help all of us be more open to each other. Thanks Anthony!
Either we dated the same man, or there is a lot of this going around:)
By the way, do you all think a relationship could work with someone who has very strong tendencies such as those described in the article? I’m thinking that perhaps if the person has the self-awareness about the tendencies and is working to improve them, and is open to feedback, maybe. (Yes, I realize I need to be open to feedback about my “problem tendencies” too.) But perhaps not if the person is very controlling and becomes angered if challenged (gently) when needed (not in every instance).
Catholic….coffee…culture?
cap·puc·ci·no
Espresso coffee mixed or topped with steamed milk or cream.
[Italian, Capuchin, cappuccino (from the resemblance of its color to the color of the monk's habit); see capuchin.]
Word History: The history of the word cappuccino exemplifies how words can develop new senses because of resemblances that the original coiners of the terms might not have dreamed possible. The Capuchin order of friars, established after 1525, played an important role in bringing Catholicism back to Reformation Europe. Its Italian name came from the long pointed cowl, or cappuccino, derived from cappuccio, “hood,” that was worn as part of the order’s habit. The French version of cappuccino was capuchin (now capucin), from which came English Capuchin. The name of this pious order was later used as the name (first recorded in English in 1785) for a type of monkey with a tuft of black cowl-like hair. In Italian cappuccino went on to develop another sense, “espresso coffee mixed or topped with steamed milk or cream,” so called because the color of the coffee resembled the color of the habit of a Capuchin friar. The first use of cappuccino in English is recorded in 1948. [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company . All rights reserved.]
Although the drink was first developed around 1900, the name cappuccino only appears after 1948 and the exact relationship (if any) to the Capuchin monks is uncertain. Quite possibly it is in reference to the foam being a “hood” on the coffee itself.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist! :-)
I understand the theme of this article, that we can often go too far in our search for Catholicism, especially in this day and age when we are faced with the continuous battle against everything which is anti-Catholic and anti-God. However, the search for Catholicity, or more aptly, the search for a proper moral life, is not to be degraded or termed “excessive”.
“To presume to make Boy Scouts more “Catholic” is to attempt to exclude non-Catholics, which is a very non-Catholic attitude.” I couldn’t disagree more! As St Paul said, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” Cor2. The point is, the reason Catholics are not strong in their faith today is because we have allowed it to be watered down with the protestant messages of our fellow “friends”. Out of a false sense of “christian fellowship” and “charity” we put aside the Truth of our Faith, i.e. outside the church there is no salvation. We no longer seek to convert; instead we seek compromise.
I certainly understand your point that a high moral “bar” can get out of hand, but this is only true in how one applies his thinking. The search for perfection and moral integrity is to be applauded. What should be avoided is the critique of others’ failings, since all of us have a moral battle to fight. But the striving for a more moral country and the (public) providing of a religious example to those around us who have no moral compass, is very pleasing to God. How else will such people ever convert their ways and return to God?
“But can you imagine if we started having things like a Catholic baseball team, or a Catholic supermarket? What is the message we are saying to the world? It says, “we exclude you.” Isn’t that the Protestant notion?”
It is certainly not! It says, we believe different from you. It says, you have left the Faith. It says, as Christ said, “I came not bring peace, but the sword.” Matt10. In our age of spiritual lethargy and apathy towards those who openly blaspheme Our Lord and Our Lady, we must stand and shout, “But he that believeth not, shall be condemned” Mark16. If we continue to sit back in our daily lives and allow error and half-truths to exist and pollute the Truth of Catholicism, we may well soon hear the world yell of the Anti-Christ “who is like unto the beast?”
“My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins. James5.
The article, in whole, has a good message that we must not, nor can we, avoid all that is of the world. But I feel some of the examples used were not of a wholly Catholic message.
Thomas we are talking about matters of faith here. Enrolling one’s child in the Boy Scouts – esp. if you find a troop with very good leaders (and many are) is not watering down one’s faith! Shopping for vegetables has nothing to do with my faith! I find the store that gives me the best price and quality. I sometimes look at the policies of the store or grower but within reason. For example, I like to pick my strawberries at a farm that isn’t open for business on Sundays. But they also sell the best quality produce for the price. And guess what? They aren’t Catholic. They are Dutch Reform and are good holy people!
Me thinks you need to be a bit more open minded!
Catholics don’t have the corner on living a saintly life!
Hey, Patricia, you missed my point. I agree, and stated, that Catholics should not, nor can we, avoid the “things of the world”. We can’t live underneath a rock.
The author is making the argument that it is “uncharitable” for Catholics to have the desire to start strictly Catholic organizations, i.e. a “Catholic” boy scouts. He stated that it sends the message to non-Catholics that we “exclude you”.
My argument is that is it NOT wrong to want to start strictly Catholic organizations, even if it means opening a “catholic” restaurant. Such thinking isn’t being “close minded” it’s wanting to associate with Catholics so that one’s Faith may be strengthened.
However, your last statement is incorrect. Only Catholics can be Saints, as only Catholics believe ALL that Christ taught. This is a requirement for heaven.
I’m quite a fan of this article, despite the fact that I’m not a Catholic! Though I feel the need to say, I’m a little offended by the line, “It says, “we exclude you.” Isn’t that the Protestant notion?”. I won’t go into any traditional ideals nor any religious debates, but it does seem rather contradicting to the main message of the article.
Catholicism should not have a stamp on every aspect of every thing to avoid exclusion (as should all religions), but stating that exclusion is a Protestant notion instead, isn’t that simply exclusion in action? Perhaps, I dare say, a little discriminatory and finger-pointing?
I really don’t mean to offend anyone, Catholic or Protestant, with this comment, but I do believe I should pipe up!
I’m a former Protestant myself and am always a little scandalized when my fellow Catholics demonize Protestants. Some Catholics think Protestant = bad and wrong. They forget that many Protestants have valid baptisms and are our brothers and sisters in Christ. And many Protestants pray, read the Bible, and do their best to please God every day of their lives.
I am Catholic through and through, but some of the holiest Christians I know are Protestants. At any rate, I believe that as our Christian brothers and sisters, they should be spoken about and treated with respect by Catholics, “for whoever is not against us is for us.”
No offense but isn’t a protestant one “in protest of the Roman Catholic Church”? That’s pretty much exclusion in action. Not trying to start anything though, really, My Mom was Protestant for years before becoming Catholic :-)
Just a thought to Rainbow and Mary Ann: No offense taken, Rainbow. My mother was Protestant and became Catholic as well, Mary Ann. My take on non-Catholics becoming Catholic is that it is a very personal journey for such people. It is something that comes from God’s intervention and Will. If you are considering becoming Catholic, Rainbow, don’t hesitate to talk with God about it. You might be on the verge of entering a new life in His Mystical Body, the Church, which includes all Christians.
There’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides. The focus should be on God’s Will. How does God feel about these hurts, division, etc.. Does it make Him sad? What’s really most important to Him? Does He want us to dwell on the negatives, or on the positives which both sides can use to create the eventual Christian unity we all want.
Sadly nowadays, anything religious – Catholic or Protestant – does not make any difference. Lately, I was participating in two institutions, one was Catholic, the other Protestant, both of which were deviation from what our Lord JC teaches us. I’m ashamed, embarrassed about how Christianity in all of its branches has been abused, misused, and twisted.
I think I agree with the premise of the article, but not with the examples.
I agree that one can go too far in trying to keep things “catholic.” But really, I would love to find a Catholic restaurant! Not because I wish to exclude anyone, but because I think I would feel more comfortable there. Because culturally, it is what I am. Take, for a moment, the word “catholic” out of the article above, and change it to “italian” or “mexican.”
As far as the boy scouts question goes, I am all for Churches starting troops. A priest told us in a talk last summer that we need to differentiate between our friends and our apostolate. Our apostolate is those friends and coworkers who we hang out with and do things with to be friendly, and hopefully to be an example to them (“preach the gospel always, using words when necessary”.) Our friends are the ones who we know will bring us closer to God and whose friendship will last through eternity. I want my kids to hang out with the neighbors and be a part of 4-H and things like that, but I know that without good friends, with the same faith and morals, the pleasures of the world will be even more tempting for them. If that means providing them with more “isolated” opportunities to make good friends, so be it. They need both. We all need both.
A favorite date “format” of ours even today is to explore the local historical/ cultural attraction, visit or attend Mass at the local Catholic church (most of which have their own interesting and even colorful history), and then dine at a local restaurant – preferably with a Groupon, Restaurant.com or other promotional voucher. Whether we find ourselves in a small town or big city, whether we’re on a vacation or stay-cation, we manage to have a fun, informative, yummy and yes, Catholic, time without blowing the budget :-)
.. I think Anthony hit it perfectly- it was a topic that desperatley needed to be addressed and was ….well said. I truly enjoyed reading each and everyone elses’ responses. I also liked Patricia’s and several others’ comments. I liked Thomas’s “fire and conviction”-but I absolutely don’t agree with you Thomas on one explicit fact. There are tons of people in the bible that were not Catholic- and are in heaven. The guy hanging to the right of Christ-on his own cross?: I don’t think he was a Catholic saint- but Christ himself said that he would be in heaven with Him on that very same day they were both crucified. I don’t think anyone missed your point. I just don’t think everyone agrees with you.. That’s all.
Hey Toby Ann,
“There are tons of people in the bible that were not Catholic – and are in heaven.”
This is a misleading statement and it depends how you look at it. Yes, the thief on the cross, St Dismas, is in heaven, and yes, he was not a “catholic” per se, but anyone that died before Pentecost was part of the Old Testament, so they were under the Old Law. This means that Catholicism didn’t exist, technically. So Faith in the Redeemer and fulfillment of the Law were 2 of the main requirements for heaven.
So you are (technically) correct that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, St Joseph, St Dismas, etc are in heaven, yet they aren’t Catholic, since they died before Pentecost.
But once Pentecost happened, the Church started the New Law. And since then, as we are obligated to believe since it is a dogma of the Faith, there are only Catholics in heaven.
Thomas are you implying that anyone outside of the Catholic faith cannot be a saint? Because if you are, you are wrong. Many many people of other faiths live very holy lives, in fact, I’m willing to bet holier lives than most Catholics in America. God takes into account their lives in the context of what they have been given and where and what they were born into.
In fact the Catholic church has NEVER held this view. It has always been understood that if a person of another faith has no opportunity to ever be exposed to the faith for example but lives a good life according to the natural law placed in him by God, he can enter heaven.
Patricia,
“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” – outside the Church there is no salvation. It’s pretty self explanatory. This means that unless one place himself under Rome and live according to the commandments, he shall not enter heaven. As a Catholic, one must believe this. It’s been defined multiple, multiple times over the centuries.
Thomas, Through God’s Mercy, there most certainly is salvation outside the Catholic Church, in instances including those who never had the opportunity to learn about and enter the Catholic Church, and those who did not have the chance to be baptized, including infants. (Pius IX stated that no one goes to hell without grave voluntary sin, and the Church has never formally condemned children who died before the age of reason).
Fr. Leonard Feeney was a priest who was excommunicated by Rome for claiming that there was no salvation outside the Church. There is an article on the EWTN website addressing the claim “Outside the Church There Is No Salvation” which states:
The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition- including “outside the Church no salvation.”
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?
Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point. (Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL)
Lumen Gentium contains the following:
“..those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
But I’m betting you don’t recognize Vatican II.
Having a Catholic business is no guarantee of integrity or even good business practice. The dealership I purchased a car from had a lovely crucifix in the showroom and in the service area. I soon discovered they were cheating me on my repair bills and lying to me about things that needed to be fixed. Dumped the car. Dumped the dealership and gasp !! – I’m with a dealership owned by a (not going to heaven EVER) Dutch Reform family! :) Love my not so new car! Love the people at the dealership! :)
Sadly, many times Christianity is Used as a cover up to mask the reality of something. be it Christian schools, Christian businesses, even churches that do not teach and live up the Bible’s standards etc. That’s why we have to be vigilant and take the time to check out something/somebody. The Bible says, “you know them from their fruits.”
Of course there are many wonderful and genuine Christian people in the business who are living a saintly life and Christlike on a daily basis who can inspire us and make us crave the Christian life.
And yet again, another great one by Anthony:) Might it be extreme? Unhealthy? Revealing some insecurities (or even rationalization and justification) about the individual who is so anti-world and must find a “catholic version of everything?? (can’t believe I’m actually saying this because everything I do in my life, for work, and my other vocations in fighting the culture of death…but I have come center, become grounded in what you are saying, and..healthier than when I first “caught the Catholic bug.”) Just a some common examples I experienced with several men: they won’t go swing dancing because “she must not be dancing with any one but her future husband”…..he won’t listen to classic 80s music because it’s not Christian, to name a couple. Meanwhile, these particulars are either quite arrogant and turn off budding Catholics, or are living a double, secretive life.
“You will know them by their fruits.”…..Amen! The more I age, grow in experience, wisdom (through tough lessons), and ‘get it’…the more I realize that it IS the core of a man (and woman), the character, the “what they do when no one is looking” that is the fruit. One can attend daily Mass for all the wrong reasons. He/she can spend hours at Adoration, or praying (saying) the Rosary…but have a hardened heart and inability to love and be loved.
Thank you for your insight, brother, friend and counselor….can’t wait to read the book. Many people are looking for virtue but seek this not for themselves.
+AMDG
Thomas, you have my sympathy. Your rigid thinking entirely removes God’s mercy from the equation and I would not want my faith to be so narrow. Do you honestly believe that a person who has had no opportunity to know the Catholic faith will go to hell? Do you HONESTLY believe this? Mother Theresa did not. Otherwise, what would have been her purpose for her mission since she did not evangelize? It would make her mission completely self-centered – she was doing good only for her own soul and that of her fellow Sisters.
Dear Patricia,
I know what Vatican II says, however, one cannot take its texts at face value, as this council is not dogmatic, it is pastoral; and its documents all have various degrees of doctrinal weight.
Now post-conciliar popes have all said that Vatican II does NOT contradict the Truth that has been passed down for the last 2,000 years. So your quote from Lumen Gentium, while it “seems” to expresses a thought contrary to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, it does not, nor can it. Therefore, you are wrong to say that God’s mercy is not present in the doctrine that invincible ignorant people will go to hell. For God’s mercy IS present, we just may not be able to see it in action, nor understand it’s presence in the lives of those who we believe are “invincibly ignorant”.
I could also argue the point of whether such “invincibly ignorant” people COULD even exist. I would doubt so, considering that they are born with a conscience, i.e. a guardian angel, and this fact alone proves God’s mercy in their lives, and would show His desire that they see and hear the Truth of His Church through the inner promptings of such a voice. Such an argument is not wrong to make. For which is more “rigid” to believe as regards God’s mercy – to believe that He would allow a person to live their life in utter lack of knowledge of His Church and of the Truth, and thereby lose the opportunity for merits and graces which would earn him glory in heaven, OR to believe that God gives ALL men the knowledge of the Truth, (whether his fellow man knows it or not) so that they can either accept or reject it?
Why would God so order it that His Church express multiple times that those outside of it would not be saved and then create certain men who are doomed to hell since they have not been given the grace to hear the Truth? “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Tim 2:4.
No, it is God’s will that we be saved and believe the Truth. He ordered the Apostles to preach over all the earth and “he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned”. For one to “believe not”, one has to first hear before they make a conscious decision to reject what is being preached. So it is logical that we understand this doctrine through eyes of faith – faith that God’s mercy and the Truth of His Church reaches everyone, everywhere and at all times. If they are ignorant, it is not God’s fault, it is because they have chosen to “believe not”.
Thomas, do you have this view of the traditions of Mary which aren’t dogma either?
And Timothy’s verse says that God wills all men to be saved, so all men must be saved.
And to state or argue that someone is NOT invincibly ignorant? That is to judge them? Are you God? Do you know their heart?
Pope Pius IX wrote: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.”
And also:
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[”
Pope Pius IX who was definitely not a modernist, states your “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” but goes on to say that we must have a proper understanding of invincibly ignorant. No one is saved without the Catholic Church, but on the other hand those who are invincibly ignorant MAY be saved, but that is known to God and God alone.
Even Thomas Aquinas (your name saint) held open the possibility of someone being saved by desiring baptism but not actually being baptized.
Your desire to maintain your position while ignoring Pope’s and council documents is both amazing AND disturbing.
This is my final say on what is truly a very silly way to believe what you will believe. I can only assume you must agree with Father Leonard Feeney.
Thomas, you very much belong on AMS. I leave you to it!
Patricia, we will just agree to disagree. The point is, salvation is a mystery which human hearts and minds cannot fully grasp, so man has invented the idea of invincible ignorance to “close the gap” between what is measurable (i.e. our daily life) and what is immeasurable (i.e. the invisible promptings of our conscience and the invisible effects of grace). Salvation through invincible ignorance sounds good, but it’s still a theory, since we cannot prove that anyone was truly, 100% ignorant. Ergo, we are not required to believe it.
Yes, St Thomas and certain Popes have made statements regarding this theory, but they emphasized only its possibility and did not hold up the idea as one that should be preached or taught. I think the emphasis that modern man has put on the ‘exception to the rule’ is wrong because it waters down the dogma and misleads those who should convert and do not. That is all…